If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

What pisses me off is that Mozilla is completely ignoring the WebP for some stupid political reasons (see the bug report). It could be the image format of the future for frak sake! :/

There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

Comment

There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P

Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.

Comment

Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.

No. Mozilla shouldn't add any new image format within the browser introducing additional fragmentation and potential security risks without first demonstrating that WebP provides enough of an advantage to counterbalance the negative factors. Just because Google has decided to release a new format doesn't mean Mozilla should immediately sign up especially as the format is rapidly evolving. Let them take their time. It is not like IE is going to add support for it anytime soon either.

Comment

Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want.

Right. And sooner or later, all browsers must support 935739 different formats, just because some web developer decided to use them. Like WMF. It has published documentation, it has its use cases, is better than SVG in some circumstances. Someone surely wants to use it. Why not?

We don't need hundreds of conflicting standards. We need a few good standards that cover all cases. There's no corner that WebP would fill. It's patent encumbered and despite google's claims there remains a risk for users. It doesn't compress better than jpeg, unless you compare using the broken psychovisual model WebP is optimizing for. It isn't even a real standard. WebM was documented as "what this bunch of source code we tagged v1.0 produces" and will remain bug-for-bug-compatible with it. WebP followed from that.

Comment

There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P

Hmm, I've seen quite different results (and even did my own test with sw compiled from source...), mind if you could link the articles? Also the bug report looks like that:

Mozilla: "Blah blah it doesn't support XY"
People: "It does that since the last release, duh."
Mozilla: "Mmmkey, but what about XZ?"
People: "That will be merged tomorrow!"
Mozilla: "Fine, could you give us some patches?"
People: "Here you go, link-to-git."
Mozilla: "Oh, well the library still sucks, we won't support it."